Lincoln as exemplar for GOP today

If Republicans are serious about recovering constitutional government, it's hard to imagine how they would be successful without Lincoln. Editor: So writes Prof. Tom Krannawitter of Hillsdale College in an IBD opinion piece today. Amid a news cycle now measured in minutes, we need the perspective of the centuries to realize Lincoln's relevance for the momentous decisions of 2009. Here is the article in full:

Lincoln's Defense Of Constitution Is Moral For Today's Republicans By THOMAS KRANNAWITTER

This is the 200th birthday of the first Republican to win a national election, Abraham Lincoln. It is good for Republicans today to remember Lincoln, not to be antiquarians, but to learn from his principled defense of the Constitution.

By becoming students of Lincoln, Republicans can win elections and would deserve to win by helping America recover its constitutional source of strength and vitality.

The greatest political crisis America faces today is neither the recession nor Islamic terrorism; it's not health care, education, immigration or abortion. It is that the United States Constitution has become largely irrelevant to our politics and policies.

All three branches of government routinely ignore or twist the meaning of the Constitution, while many of our problems today are symptoms of policies that have no constitutional foundation.

If we are to recover the authority of the Constitution and the many ways it restrains and channels government power, someone or some party must offer a principled defense of the cause of constitutional government.

They must understand not only the Constitution, but also the principles that informed its original purposes and aspirations, principles found in the Declaration of Independence among other places.

No one understood that better than Lincoln.

Employing a biblical metaphor, Lincoln once described the leading principle of the Declaration of Independence — equal natural rights — as "the word fitly spoken which has proved an apple of gold to us," while the Constitution stands as "the picture of silver, subsequently framed around it.

"The picture," Lincoln argued, "was made not to conceal or destroy the apple, but to adorn and preserve it."

Lincoln's right. The declaration's assertion that legitimate governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed" because "all men are created equal" is precisely why "We the people" are authorized to "ordain and establish this Constitution."

Further, the Constitution limits the power of government because, as the declaration makes clear, the purpose of government is limited to securing the God-given, not government-granted, rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And a government of limited purpose should be one of limited power.

The Constitution, however, has suffered two nearly fatal criticisms: It's old and it's racist.

The former was launched by "progressive" thinkers more than a century ago and backed up by sophisticated theories of social and political evolution. Woodrow Wilson, for example, once compared the Constitution to "political witchcraft."

The charge of racism, mainly due to the Constitution's accommodations for slavery, found its loudest voice during the civil rights movement in the 1960s and following decades. Justice Thurgood Marshall voiced this critique in a 1987 Bicentennial essay when he refused to celebrate the original Constitution of 1787 because, he alleged, it was racist and therefore immoral.

The progressive and civil rights critiques have given us a century of New Freedom politics, New Deal politics, Great Society politics, Third Way politics, Compassionate Conservatism politics and now Responsible politics.

What we need, however, is a revival of constitutional politics. But the Constitution cannot be defended against these powerful criticisms unless someone can demonstrate that the Constitution incorporates principles that are both timeless and good.

And any such defense must confront two stubborn facts: The Constitution was indeed written long ago, and it did offer certain protections for slavery.

It was Lincoln's purpose to remind all Americans, white and black, that political freedom rests on an "abstract truth applicable to all men and all times."

That "abstract truth" is the principle of equal natural rights, a principle that cuts across time and space and is, contrary to progressive opinion, valid always and everywhere.

Regarding slavery, Lincoln explained that a constitutional regime dedicated to the declaration's principle of equality is a regime where slavery must be "placed in the course of ultimate extinction."

"If we do this," Lincoln said rightly, "we shall not only have saved the (constitutional) Union. . . . We shall have so saved it as to make and keep it forever worthy of the saving."

At Gettysburg's cemetery, as he struggled mightily to save the Constitution, Lincoln rededicated America to its original noble purpose in one of the most beautiful speeches of all time.

Lincoln understood that slavery did not make America unique. America's uniqueness is being the first constitutional government built on a foundation of equality and the terrible price America paid for ridding itself of slavery.

Lincoln's constitutionalism, I believe, is the only effective rebuttal to progressive and civil rights criticisms. Thus if Republicans are serious about recovering constitutional government, it's hard to imagine how they would be successful without Lincoln.

With Lincoln, it's hard to imagine how they would fail.

Krannawitter teaches political science at Hillsdale College in Michigan and is author of "Vindicating Lincoln: Defending the Politics of Our Greatest President." This article appeared in the Investor's Business Daily on 2/12/09.

A "garbage" stimulus bill

Barack Obama gave his first news conference last night and spread the left's vision of doom-and-gloom, warning of a "lost decade" if we didn't act quickly to stem the faltering economy. Pointedly, he stated that the "Federal Government is the only remaining option to jolt the economy", and criticized Republicans for wanting to focus on tax cuts as a means of stimulating growth.  Just what you would expect a socialist to say.  Government is the answer -- the only answer -- to that which ills us...  And now comes some truth about the vaunted stimulus package, from the mouth of a Harvard economist with solid liberal credentials, Robert Barro (this excerpted from an interview in the Atlantic Magazine courtesy of the WSJ):

Barro: This is probably the worst bill that has been put forward since the 1930s. I don't know what to say. I mean it's wasting a tremendous amount of money. It has some simplistic theory that I don't think will work, so I don't think the expenditure stuff is going to have the intended effect. I don't think it will expand the economy. And the tax cutting isn't really geared toward incentives. It's not really geared to lowering tax rates; it's more along the lines of throwing money at people. On both sides I think it's garbage. So in terms of balance between the two it doesn't really matter that much.

Atlantic: Well, presumably Larry Summers is not an idiot.

Barro: [laughs] That is another conversation. I have known him for 25 years, and I have opinions about that.

Atlantic: Well, presumably Christina Romer is not an idiot if you're . . .

Barro: They've brought in some reasonable people in terms of economic advisers. I don't know what impact they're having, and I suppose they have different views on Keynesian macroeconomics than I have. But I'm giving you my opinion about it.

Iraq: good news means no news

Iraq has now taken another huge step toward stable democratic rule and no one seems to have noticed. While headlines this week followed Obama's every utterance and his cabinet's growing tax evasion problems, a story of historic proportions was unfolding in a nation that has dominated American politics for the past five years. Some 140,000 U.S. troops are deployed in Iraq, and over 4500 Americans have paid the ultimate price to create the conditions in which national elections could be held and a democratic government could peacefully take power. Just such an election occurred in Iraq this past week.

And it hardly made the news.

What a difference a year or two makes. Throughout 2007 and 2008, the debate that raged in Washington and among the pundits in the press was to whether Iraq was a "lost cause". Though evidence of the success of the "surge" being implemented by David Patreaus was clear to those who chose to see it, the media was having none of it. During the early days of the 2008 primary season, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both gave endless stump speeches decrying the war and the need to "bring the troops home now". Obama was convinced that the surge would fail, and continued to tout his "wisdom" in being the only candidate in both parties to be "against the war from the beginning". Even in the face of evidence that the surge was working, with U.S. combat deaths declining precipitously and security (and commerce) returning to areas of Iraq that were once uninhabitable, Obama never budged: Iraq was a failure, a mistake in judgment and the surge "too little, too late".

I'm sure the Iraqis who voted this past week would beg to differ. As Frederick and Kimberly Kagan wrote today in the Wall Street Journal, the Iraqi election not only reaffirmed democracy itself, but showed that voters are increasingly choosing secular candidates over religious ideologues:

Iraqi voters chose nationalist, secularist parties over religious parties by a wide margin. In the mostly Shiite south, candidates associated with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa Party appear to have gained significantly. This outcome is noteworthy because Dawa came to power in the 2005 elections with virtually no grass-roots support or organization. Few would have predicted Mr. Maliki's electoral success even a year ago.

In addition, the Kagans note that the influence of Moqtada al-Sadr has continued to wane. The former scourge of U.S. forces that lead the insurrection in 2006 following the bombing of the Samarra Mosque in Baghdad -- the spark that lit the sectarian tensions that threatened to subsume Iraq into Civil War. al-Sadr and his Mahdi militia ran roughshod over Iraq until the forces of the Bush/Patreaus surge prompted Sadr to disarm.

Moqtada al-Sadr, by contrast, relied on grass-roots support for his movement and seemed poised to dominate elections in the south a year ago. But he lost much of his popular support when Iraqi Security Forces defeated his militias in Basra, Baghdad and Maysan in June 2008. The door was open for the well-organized Iraqi Supreme Islamic Council (ISCI), the clerically dominated party that had controlled many important provincial governorships and councils in the south. Yet Iraqis voted instead for Mr. Maliki's coalition or for the secular Shiite coalition of former prime minister Iyad Allawi.

The Iraqi elections thus seem to have ushered in a new era of secular democracy, and provide the latest proof that the Iraq which George Bush has bequethed to the Obama Administration is well on its way to becoming a stable, functioning democracy in the heart of the Middle East. More importantly, these latest election results are a further blow to the efforts of Iran to destabilize that Maliki government in favor of an Islamic state:

The big loser in this election was Iran. Iranian agents spent a lot of money trying to influence the outcome of the elections in the south, and they largely failed. Iran's favored parties did poorly. The Iranians had hoped to persuade Iraqi voters to punish Mr. Maliki for signing the security agreement with the United States. Instead, these elections proved to be a powerful vote of confidence for the prime minister and his policies, including that agreement.

All of which puts Barack Obama in a great position to advance American interests in the region -- should he choose not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  The continued presence of American troops -- as honest brokers in the on-going negotiations between factions and as a bulwark against the return of Al Qaeda -- is essential to cementing this fragile democracy into a steady and reliable member of the international community.

The presence of a stable Iraq with a democratically elected government is a gift to the world from George W. Bush. Pray now that Barack Obama doesn't follow the self-loathing instincts of those in the media and within his party who wish to isolate us from the world, and abandon this important and noble effort before it is finished.

KY in Peril: Where's the Outrage?

Reports out of Kentucky this morning are extremely dire.  At least 20 persons are known dead as a result of a horrific ice storm that has paralyzed the state. The citizens of Kentucky need electricity, water, heat, food and sanitation.  Crews are working tirelessly to get things back up and running.  While most hospitals have generator-supplied power, many nursing homes do not.  The elderly and infirm sit in cold, dark environments, waiting for relief efforts to bring food and water.  My heart and my prayers go out to our citizens in Kentucky.  Midwestern ice storms are devastating at best and the destruction and suffering they cause are such that you should hope you never experience it. As President Obama turns up the thermostat in the White House and gets ready for his big Super Bowl party, I wonder if there is outrage being expressed on MSNBC, CNN and other media outlets.  After all, neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. Biden have raced to the scene in Kentucky and provided hands-on assistance.  While fellow countrymen suffer, they stay tucked safe and warm in Washington, D.C.

In a normal political environment, the President's response to stay out of the way so as to not create even more problems in a region in peril would be automatically accepted.  If we harken back to the Bush administration, however, the wounds are still fresh in remembering the ridiculous commentary that the media and Democrat politicians spewed each and every time there was an act of God that occurred in our country in terms of weather and subsequent damage and loss.

About a year ago, east-central Illinois was inundated with "100 year" flood waters that destroyed homes, businesses and created massive soil erosion in a very fertile farm region.  Illinois is a blue state, and Democrats from town mayors to Gov. Blago to Sen. Obama were outraged at the failure of the Bush administration to get relief quicker to homeless families and others adversely affected by this tragedy.  Opinion columns in newspapers across the state were clear that any delay or failure to act would not have occurred if a Democrat occupied the White House.  In their view, a Republican president was 'punishing' the people of Illinois by deliberately ignoring their plight.

In May, 2007, a massive tornado struck a small town in Kansas, virtually leveling the entire community.  Democrat Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, while standing in rubble hours after the storm hit, could not restrain herself from partisan back-stabbing.  She quickly laid blame at the feet of the Bush administration, claiming the people of this town were in immediate need of assistance from the Kansas National Guard, but there were few to be found, thanks to Bush's war.  She announced on national TV that the troops she commands were all in Iraq.  Actual numbers of available Guardsmen were later released to show there was ample assistance and equipment available, and had been dispatched.  I don't believe the governor retracted her statements.

Of course, Hurricane Katrina stands out as the most glaring example of the Left's opinion that the Bush-Cheney administration not only deliberately allowed people to die and lose their homes, they also planned the entire weather event and wished it upon the black population residing in New Orleans. 

Just as more probably could have and should have been done by the federal government in these three examples, it is likely the the federal government will in some way be slow to respond or meet the needs of suffering people in Kentucky.  The fed's often fail us, but depending on the political party, one side is deliberate and evil, and the other side is doing the best it can but patience is required as regulations and red tape must be worked through.   When the media reports in this way, are we surprised which party takes power after the next election?

Thus far, KY Democrat Gov. Steve Beshear has not denounced the president or the response of federal agencies, and we probably won't hear him do that anytime soon.  The only recourse for the partisans in the media may be to somehow find a way to tie this disaster to our former president, i.e., failing infrastructure and power grids he should have fixed but deliberately did not because he spent all our money in Iraq; it's been days since we've heard that one, it's time to bring it up, I'm sure.   Keith Olbermann and a film crew may be headed to Texas right now to try and catch the Bush family in the midst of a high-five following a touchdown this evening.  He'll be quick to tell us how unfair and immoral it was for Mr. Bush to enjoy the Super Bowl in the comfort of his home that happens to have heat, power and water.  Oh, that's right....Keith probably will be manning the commentary desk at the game, also comfortable and well-fed.   That just doesn't seem fair when so many in Kentucky not only can't see the game, they don't have food, water and heat to get through the night.   Where's the outrage?

C'est le change, Obama-style

Today's lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal caught my eye this morning, reminding me of a famous French proverb that should be kept close at hand over the next four years: "Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose". Translated: "The more things change, the more they stay the same." It sure didn't take long for Barack Obama to answer one of the compelling questions that I repeatedly raised during his campaign: will he be the "post-partisan" candidate that he promised to be? Or will he be the highly partisan politician he proved himself to be in the United States Senate?

The answer to this has come early in week #2 of his term, when he decided to ram the economic stimulus through the House of Representatives on purely partisan lines -- bowing to Nancy Pelosi in the process. As the Journal reports:

Barack Obama promised to end the "politics of division," unite Washington's factions and overcome partisanship. And what do you know -- so far he has: The President's stimulus plan generated bipartisan House opposition, with every Republican and 11 Democrats voting against it on Wednesday. It passed 244-188. The political class is feigning shock that Mr. Obama's stylistic olive branches to the GOP -- cocktail hour at the White House, cutting a line item for shrubbery on the National Mall -- failed to peel off even a single vote across the aisle. The chatter is that Republicans were taking a great political risk to oppose a President with 70%-plus approval ratings on his first piece of legislation. But the real risk here is to Mr. Obama, and it isn't from Republicans. It's from his fellow Democrats. Given the miserable economy and the Beltway's neo-Keynesian policy consensus, a true compromise would have gathered overwhelming support. But rather than use Mr. Obama's political capital to craft such a deal, the White House abdicated to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. House Democrats proceeded to ignore all GOP suggestions as they wrote the bill, shedding tax cuts while piling on spending for every imaginable interest group. The bipartisan opposition reflects how much the Pelosi bill became a vehicle for partisan social policy rather than economic stimulus.

Genuine bipartisanship means compromises on policy, not photo-ops and hand shakes. The last two Democratic Presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, also came to power with big Democratic majorities in Congress, veered far to the left on policy, and quickly came undone. To adapt White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's now famous line, a 70% approval rating is a terrible thing to waste on the ideas of Henry Waxman and Pete Stark.

One of my biggest fears about Barack Obama was that he would not be strong enough to stand up to the far-left partisans of his own party, and would be bullied into following the ideologues into a standard liberal abyss -- filled with the kind of redistributive social policies that brought us the Great Society and other expansive social progams. Given the unprecedented recent expansion of the government into our economy, with tax payers spending trillions on bail-outs and flame-outs, the hope was the Obama would be able to put pragmatism over politics on managing the public's interest. So much for "hope" and "change".

Of course, "change" was always an ill-defined bromide, capable of allowing the Obama campaign to create a narrative that had almost nothing of substance underneath it. It was the perfect vessel for this candidate, who gave people hope without telling them what specifically he was going to do to make such lofty ideas and goals a reality. And now we know that for all the rhetoric, the reality is something we've seen before: old style partisan politics with big government aspirations.

Change we can believe in, mon ami.